Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2051946-1-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

1,745 chars

provide an explanation for the prior inconsistent statements – he stated that because he was eager

to leave Pierce County and start his sentence, he signed off on what his lawyer had written even

though it was not true.

Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the

testimony of James’s attorney.

B. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

Smith contends that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to request limiting

instructions regarding James’s prior inconsistent statements and evidence of James’s crimes. We

disagree.

1. Standard of Review

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 22 of the

Washington Constitution guarantee criminal defendants the right to effective assistance of

counsel. State v. Estes, 188 Wn.2d 450, 457, 395 P.3d 1045 (2017). We review de novo

ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Id.

To prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, the defendant must show both that (1)

defense counsel’s representation was deficient and (2) the deficient representation prejudiced

him or her. Id. at 457-58. Representation is deficient if, after considering all the circumstances,

it falls below an objective standard of reasonableness. Id. at 458. Prejudice exists if there is a

reasonable probability that, except for counsel’s error, the result of the proceeding would have

22
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 51946-1-II

been different. Id. It is not enough that ineffective assistance conceivably impacted the case’s

outcome; the defendant must affirmatively show prejudice. Id.

We begin our analysis with a strong presumption that defense counsel’s performance was